kceezie said:
True, after this forum...I'm going with the kit lens and d7000. I will probably get the 50mm 1.8 as well. I know a lot of people want me to get a 3100, but I just feel it will be a waste b/c I will want the d7000 next year, so I might as well get it now.

How do you know you will want the D7000? The real only advantage of the D7000 to the average user is the ability to use non-AFS lenses. For the cost difference you can just buy and AF-S lens instead of one of the older ones and really I don't know of many average people that would use the wireless flash commander stuff that is the other advantage. As far as the sensor and stuff you might get a slightly better pictures from the D7000, but it won't really make much of a difference.

I guess I just asked myself what I really needed on the D90 that I wouldn't get on the D5000 and there wasn't anything. That price gap was only about $200 though. If you don't really know what you need the D7000 for then why would you get it? As I said the only real advantage to the average user is being able to use non AF-S lenses, but that doesn't seem like it is worth $500.

Although if everyone has the money for the D7000 then so be it :) IMO D3100 w/ a 17-55 f2.8 (or other nice lens) > D7000 w/ kit lens.

tcole1983 said:
How do you know you will want the D7000? The real only advantage of the D7000 to the average user is the ability to use non-AFS lenses. For the cost difference you can just buy and AF-S lens instead of one of the older ones and really I don't know of many average people that would use the wireless flash commander stuff that is the other advantage. As far as the sensor and stuff you might get a slightly better pictures from the D7000, but it won't really make much of a difference.

I guess I just asked myself what I really needed on the D90 that I wouldn't get on the D5000 and there wasn't anything. That price gap was only about $200 though. If you don't really know what you need the D7000 for then why would you get it? As I said the only real advantage to the average user is being able to use non AF-S lenses, but that doesn't seem like it is worth $500.

Although if everyone has the money for the D7000 then so be it :) IMO D3100 w/ a 17-55 f2.8 (or other nice lens) > D7000 w/ kit lens.

This really got me thinking....what are the key differences between the entry level 3100 and the 7000. Here's what I see:

So I think the following things are significant: autofocus difference, the metering, no AE bracketing, penta mirror viewfinder, low res LCD monitor and 3 fps continuous.

I would appreciate comments on the importance of these differences to a new to DSLR shooter planning on family shots, holiday landscape shots and indoor shots. I am planning on buying either camera with the 18-200mm zoom and the SB400 speedlight.

To a brand new dslr shooter who is mostly shooting in full auto mode those differences don't mean much of anything. Only thing that would make a difference is MP and that won't even matter unless they are printing anything larger than 36in prints. I've had the d40x for 4 years and I am just now finding myself NEEDING to upgrade and I shoot very specific photography that would benefit from an upgrade. I am a semi-pro photographer that has sold prints in the past all with the d40x. I would only suggest d7000 over d3100 if you are shooting in full manual consistently or shoot a specific type of photography that would benefit from a $500upgrade, and I'm not talking about shooting family shots specific. I'm talking about extreme low light (lower than a fast lens will solve), sports photography (high fps), printing huge prints (larger than 36in) or something of the like.

So I think the following things are significant: autofocus difference, the metering, no AE bracketing, penta mirror viewfinder, low res LCD monitor and 3 fps continuous.

I would appreciate comments on the importance of these differences to a new to DSLR shooter planning on family shots, holiday landscape shots and indoor shots. I am planning on buying either camera with the 18-200mm zoom and the SB400 speedlight.

If you are really set on the 18-200 at least get yourself sb600 MUCH better and useful flash than SB400

I really want the long end. My plan is to buy a wide prime for a faster close in lens. I am going to experiment with the zoom and figure out whether I want the Sigma 20 f1.8 or the Nikkor 35 mm f1.8. Tell me why the sb600...so much better?

Sb400 is like a on camera flash but it's only advantage it that you can bounce it. Sb600 is a fully working flash. You get to adjust flash output and zoom range. Long story short, SB 400 is a waste of money.

Can bounce, easier to velcro gels to, recycles significantly faster, and has a higher guide number.

The SB-400 is quite limited when compared to the 600, but is only a waste of money if you want the features the 600 offers. A strong argument can be made that the 600 is a waste if you have a camera w/o commander mode, as one would be better off putting the money towards a flash which gives you this function.

Sensor 14.2 vs 16.2 MP.
- D7000 better but who cares about MP like so many said

Auto focus 11 AF vs 39 AF; 0 cross type, 9 cross type; multi cam 1000 auto focus module vs multi cam 4800DX focus module
- Mumbo jumbo to the amateur. Extra AF pts and latest technology are great, but perhaps not worth upgrade. I wanted the 51pts on D300s, but settled on 11pts of D90, I still use the joystick to select my focus pt most of the time. Yes 51 (or 39) would be better, but it's not the be all end all. 11pts work fine if that's your hangup.

no custom exposure modes
- Not sure how these will work on D7000, but I always find myself at -0.3 or -0.7 on the D90 and if the custom settings remain that way after a 2-button reset in other modes, this could prove more useful than one might think.

metering 420 pixel vs 2016 pixel
- Improved technology...Would I buy a D2x over a D90? Technically a pro camera for a high consumer model? Well the technological advancements could very well make the D90 more attractive. I wish I knew what this particular advancement means, but we'll know soon enough after hands-on reviews. As above, I find the D90 meters bright and some have complained that D300s metering is different/better. Not sure if D3100 vs D7000 vs D300s is the same deal.

no AE Bracketing
- If you plan on doing HDR or you are not sure about your lighting and metering in modes other than automatic, this can prove useful. On my old D40, I learned to do HDR using more than 3 exposures easily. D90 with only 3 max (same as D7000), HDR stills works but you might want to use the manual technique anyway to get more shots. That's it for HDR. As for regular family photography or a tricky sky, etc. 3-shot bracketing can be nice to have shooting in burst mode where you take the 3 shots (or 2) to get the one you want...drawback being you have tons of huge files later and pull your hair out selecting them OR the good shot is on the dark/light setting. Doing same on a camera with no bracketing is not easy. Conclusion: It does not sound like you want bracketing, but neither did I and I personally like having it despite it pissing me off as often as it helps. D3100 does not have bracketing apparently...you might not miss it. Again, long story that depends on what you plan on doing or how much you already undersand.

iso to 3200 vs to 6400
- Again technology. D90 better than D40. D7000 professes much better than D90 (rivaling the D700 so they claim). Not sure on D3100, but again depends on what you shoot.

only 230,000 pixel display vs 921,000
- D90 screen rocks, but still get blurrier pictures than you tought you had looking at screen. Nothing jumps out at me that these screens (D3100 or D7000) are superbly better. I'd love to see first hand, so take my comments loosely.

more wireless flash modes
- You can buy either a sync cable to get flash off camera or you can buy Chinese wireless triggers...you need to manually set your flashes in the latter case. I tried briefly the Nikon CLS with my D90 and I find it a bit cumbersome, but I'm still learning. Realistically, I would not drool so much over this feature, but like everything it's there when you need it if you have it.

continuous shooting 3 fps vs 6 fps
- Aside from a zillion files on your PC, how can one not be happy with more frame rates. 3 is fine, but 6 is better. Kids do move quickly even for a DSLR. Another technical advancement for a relatively still-amateur camera (D7000).

smaller and lighter
- I like the big camera, but the bag gets heavy with lenses and stuff.

The one thing mentioned previously and I'll say again is the buttons. I have not studied the D3100 in great depth, but the D40 had one programmable button. I chose ISO (push the button while turning the thumb wheel and your ISO changes). Otherwise on the D40 (and D5000, so I will assume D3100) you need to push the INFO button, then move the joystick to your desired change on the rear screen and use different ways of changing the setting. The D90/7000 line has a few more buttons where you can change the settings almost on the fly looking only at the top LCD. You get the following on the D90 for example:

- QUAL: Push and hold while turning rear thumbwheel to set picture quality
- ISO: Same thing to change ISO
- WB: Same to change white balance, plus if you turn the front thumbwheel you can add warmth/coolness to the white balance tone. First advantage of two wheels.

- BKT: Turn on bracketing, choose number of frames and direction of exposure using rear wheel and the EV stops using front wheel.
- FLASH: The wheels can adjust the flash modes/strength. This may be also the case on D3100 (rear wheel at least)

- Shooting mode: When held, wheel will change between shooting modes. D7000 has the same method as D300s so even better than D90.
- Metering: Wheels permits switching from matrix (99%), center weighted (0%) and spot (1%)...jokingly you change this less often so not a huge advantage.
- Front custom button: I set this to the focus mode (too complicated to type here)
- FOCUS: Permits changing between stationary or continuous focus modes

Above said, those are a lot of functions to screw around with on the rear screen after pressing INFO button on the lower end camera. Maybe D3100 fixes some of this. REMEMBER that if you plan on shooting in Auto mode, all above is moot since you cannot change much in that mode anyway.

Apologies if above sounds too technical, but it's your money that you plan to spend wisely. Again, if you are serious think hard, if you are casual the D3100 is great and you will not regret. The above poster said he had D40x for 4 years. I had D40 for 2 yrs. I am not buying D7000 to replace my D90.

Product lines exist for a reason...each camera is designed for different users. ALL of them can take the same picture given the same lens (with slight metering exceptions).

Definitley buy the SB-600 as your flash...others are either too limited (SB-400) or expensive (SB-700/800/900).

I know I wrote a lot and some may say I'm full of crap, but I was in your boat a while back so I speak as a fellow amateur that has gotten very serious when the possibilities of what I could create were known.

@kceezie, you've got a budget and I think that's great, but asking a committee to spend it is asking for trouble. ;-0

I likely would ask you if you plan to get into photography as a fair-to-middling hobby, and if so, then recommend the D7K with a 18-105mm kit lens and the SB700 speedlight.

The lens is a very good lens and only gets a bad rap because it has a plastic-y feel to it. It takes terrific pictures. It has Vibration Reduction and it's a bargain.

The flash can also operate as a master flash with the Creative Light System, and while that won't matter now - you'll actually use the flash as a slave with the camera's flash as the commander, later you can get an additional flash as a slave. Using an SB800/SB900 as a Master works much better than the small flash on the camera. I would get a diffuser for the flash. For work I have several, one is from Gary Fong. It's an odd contraption, but the light is really nice.

As for other lenses, well, that's up to you.

You really don't need anything else. A 35mm 1.8 is nice as a normal (the same or similar perspective as what the human eye sees), a 50mm 1.8 is nice as a short telephoto and really good for portraits, and both are pretty inexpensive. I really wouldn't step in any deeper until you see how well you like what you're getting.

I would get Nikon filters for the lens you get to protect the lenses from any scratches.

D3100 has one cross type sensor.. many people just use the one(by choice) even for the 51 focus point of the D300/D3/D3s/D700 so you are not really loosing out there. The D3100 sensor is already better than any of the other DX pro cameras (other than the D7k(maybe)) for a new amateur just starting into the DSLR world there is SO MUCH.. SO MUCH to work out and play with that a few MP less or more is just insignificant to the whole experience.

The 18-200 is a great lens for a new photographer. the range in FOV is great for helping you find your "eye" but even the 12 MP DX cameras like the D90 etc will out resolve that lens. so 14 and more so the 16 mp will surely be more camera than that lens can resolve. In the samples I have seen the D7k seems to be more camera than even the 24-70 can resolve !! (How cool it that.. Cant wait to stick some of my primes on it !!)

Its your choice but I think the 3100 is a great camera! Was considering that one but for me the D7K is probably what I will get( the ais lens compatibility tipped it for me) even though it is in some ways a step down(for me) from the D300 level cameras.

heartyfisher said:
The 18-200 is a great lens for a new photographer... but even the 12 MP DX cameras like the D90 etc will out resolve that lens. so 14 and more so the 16 mp will surely be more camera than that lens can resolve.

This claim, if true, is easily demonstrable through a simple test pattern shot to show lines of resolution.
I have seen no tests indicating that it is. Do you mind linking to one?

kceezie--Great topic. I am in the same vote you are except I am just looking to start with a body and high telephoto lens like the Tamron 18-270. I am looking to shoot the kid, and in door stuff, but also want something that I can take great low light outdoor hunting photos at longer ranges and have good quality pics.

9. My biggest thing is the weather proofing it has, as I am outside hunting all the time where any type of conditions are possible. No one has really brought this up yet so I thought it might help you out as well. If the D3100 had this I don't I would be have this internal struggle over which one to get. For me starting out I don't know if the above 9 things make the D7000 worth it. I guess I probably won't know the answer until I lay my hands on both of them.

Thanks to all of you who have taken the time to respond to this tread, and help all of us newbies out their get started off on the right foot.

Drab said:
This claim, if true, is easily demonstrable through a simple test pattern shot to show lines of resolution.
I have seen no tests indicating that it is. Do you mind linking to one?

Look, I have one of these and love it.(Though I use it less these days as I have found my fav FOV and bought primes for them :-) )
There are tons of reviews out there of this lens as Its been around for years just google.

:PS found a review at photozone.de .. there are others .. the MTF dont show everything.. eg at varios apertures.

heartyfisher said:
Look, I have one of these and love it.(Though I use it less these days as I have found my fav FOV and bought primes for them :-) )
There are tons of reviews out there of this lens as Its been around for years just google.

Oh, I googled. I find no support for your claim. It is why I asked, you apparently know of some. All the tests I see show a center resolution of >2000 lines widths per picture height, which would need a 4000 pixel high sensor (21 MP) to outresolve.

EDIT:
changes "lines per height" to "line widths per picture height" as (even though it is implied in my "4000 pixel high" line) I did misspeak.

So far the voices of reason have advised you to get D3100. You still want the D7000. Fine. Just do it. Otherwise this thread will go for another 5 pages recycling same common sense arguments. You don't need us to reinforce your idea. You have money, you received advice now use those brain cells of yours and buy what is best for YOU.

Enjoy your camera, post some pictures here, and if you have problems ask here.

Thanks for the heads up. Hate those dam spamers !
Teh photozone.de review shows 1300 at some focal lengths . There was another nice review with a dynamic 3D lense sharpness graph.. will have to look for that one.. see if I can find it..

The 18-200 is a very nice lens and for web photos and average sise prints its more than enough.. and if you know how to optimise it even very large prints are fine. I was not dizing it . I was just saying that the D7k is more camera than a newbie will need.. if he uses a 18-200.

I'd go for the 7000. I quickly found out I needed more dials buttons and menu options on my 5000. It didn't take long, no prior slr experience, just all of a sudden you'll think, this onscreen menu is too slow, I just need another button for this and one for that... unless you might be satisfied with the presets/scenes, but then you wouldn't be reading this forum :)

Haha! Drab, I think you must be some kind of scientist or maybe a lawyer. Am I close? (No offense intended, of course. I've always liked people who stand up for themselves.)

I've always wondered about MTF50. Doesn't it mean it can resolve that many line widths per picture height at 50% of the contrast of the original black and white lines? I have to admit I don't even know how that translates to real life when not shooting at black and white lines, so to make sense of MTF numbers of an unfamiliar lens I usually compare them to a lens I have experience with. I'd love to be enlightened, though.

heartyfisher said:
Like I said I have the 18-200 and I used it on my D70 which is 6MP and even on that camera its not sharp at some apertures and some focal lenghts.. look at mtfs all you like..:-)

Resolving power is a component of, but not the entirety of, sharpness. My insistence that a lens is not out-resolved by the D7000 is not the same as my insistence that a lens is sharp.

EDIT:
My point is - if you want to argue the technical merits of gear (a debate I think is not fruitful) have the facts to back up technical merit claims. The OP's experience will be much more dependent upon composition, lighting, vision, technique, all the things that make a great photo. The idea that the 18-200 is somehow a bottleneck to a D7000 owner on resolution matters is silly.

It's slow, it distorts, it vignettes, it arguably encourages bad behavior, but those are other issues. ;) (It's also $760).

Drab said:
Resolving power is a component of, but not the entirety of, sharpness. My insistence that a lens is not out-resolved by the D7000 is not the same as my insistence that a lens is sharp.

EDIT:
My point is - if you want to argue the technical merits of gear (a debate I think is not fruitful) have the facts to back up technical merit claims. The OP's experience will be much more dependent upon composition, lighting, vision, technique, all the things that make a great photo. The idea that the 18-200 is somehow a bottleneck to a D7000 owner on resolution matters is silly.

It's slow, it distorts, it vignettes, it arguably encourages bad behavior, but those are other issues. ;) (It's also $760).

Agree mostly :-) But the 18-200 IS a "bottleneck on resolution matters" even on my 6MP camera the 18-70 kit lens I have is noticeably almost across the board sharper than the 18-200 at the same focal lenghts and apertures. (and I would assert that it would be much more noticeable on a 16mp sensor) But what I am saying to the OP was that if he has decided on the 18-200( which I support as a good lens to learn photography on) then the MP count on the D7000 vs the D3100 is a non issue as even on my 6mp camera the non-sharpness of the lens is evident . Again sharpness is not the be all of photography other wise I wont be using my 18-200 more than the 18-70. even when I get my D7000 I will probably be using that unsharp lens a lot! If I need a super sharp photo I wont be using that lens. :-) but then I dont need a super sharp photo most of the time :-) yes that 18-200 is sharp enough most of the time.. and yes it does outresolve my 6MP sensor and probably the 16MP sensor at some optimal settings.

poster said:
So far the voices of reason have advised you to get D3100. You still want the D7000. Fine. Just do it. Otherwise this thread will go for another 5 pages recycling same common sense arguments. You don't need us to reinforce your idea. You have money, you received advice now use those brain cells of yours and buy what is best for YOU.

Enjoy your camera, post some pictures here, and if you have problems ask here.

OK. I have decided to go with the D3100, the 18-200 and potentially the SB600. Thanks for all the advice and input. My next question is....any one know when the D3100 will hit the stores?